The Complexities of the Ukraine Dilemma - The aid offered by the West may help, but it cannot relieve Volodymyr Zelensky of the terrible predicaments he must manage in the weeks ahead. - link
Radio Ukraine - A visit to Kraina FM, Ukraine’s “radio station of national resistance.” Plus, how some Black workers feel about returning to the office. - link
In a World on Fire, Stop Burning Things - The truth is new and counterintuitive: we have the technology necessary to rapidly ditch fossil fuels. - link
Mark Ulriksen’s “Stellar Night” - The artist discusses falling in love with the Manhattan skyline at night and his favorite neighborhood walks. - link
A Syrian Photographer’s Gift to Refugee Children - After fleeing his native country for Turkey, Serbest Salih created a mobile darkroom and went on the road teaching kids to make pictures. - link
Despite its many weaknesses, Bridgerton might be wobbling its way toward becoming a good show.
Bridgerton is back, with all the pomp and dazzlement of a quadrille at Almack’s. But while the show’s Regency romance pedigree is still on full display, just as it was throughout its controversial first season, the tone of this season is much more restrained, far from the heady, hypersexual chaos that nearly overwhelmed the show’s debutante season.
Instead, Bridgerton season two has gone in the opposite direction. The result is a season that will likely delight returning and new Bridgerton viewers, but may disappoint fans of the source material.
Season two turns away from the torrid passions detailed in the original Bridgerton romance series by author Julia Quinn, and flings itself into the arms of the slow-burn, UST-filled, well-trodden Jane Austen cinematic milieu. For the first half of the season’s eight episodes, out on Netflix on March 25, this chaste change-up signifies mainly good things: richer, more interesting character development, more time with our ensemble Bridgertons, and plenty of opportunity for our main couple — eldest son Anthony Bridgerton (Jonathan Bailey) and his fiery nemesis Kate Sharma (Simone Ashley) — to indulge in all the smoldering longing any romance fan could want.
There’s truly a lot to enjoy about this season, which is every bit as opulent and beautiful to look at as its predecessor. Our main characters exchange lots of sultry touches. The characters you loved from the first season get more lovable — and so do characters you hated. The Bridgertons get to spend more time together as a family, which is always the best thing the show has going for it. Eloise discovers proto-feminism! Pen’s dresses get marginally less citrus-colored! Lady Danbury gets in a few good cane taps! There’s lots of good stuff happening in season two, and thankfully the plot will cause far less controversy than last season’s.
Eventually, however, despite the best efforts of a strong ensemble cast, the season begins to lag considerably, both in pacing and ingenuity, as its plot, much like the first season, gets weirder and more unwieldy. Despite beginning with a host of interesting concepts, a huge budget (season one reportedly clocked in at $7 million per episode), and an utterly talented ensemble to venture forth with, season two winds up spinning its wheels in its final few episodes.
The point at which Bridgerton starts to wobble is also the point at which it departs drastically from the novel it’s based on. That devolution has infuriated die-hard fans of the Bridgerton novels — because Kate and Anthony aren’t just a Bridgerton couple; to many fans, they are the Bridgerton couple. Their book, The Viscount Who Loved Me, is generally considered to be the best and most beloved book in Quinn’s series, which devotes a book each to all eight Bridgerton children. And while there’s one big reason some kind of major plot change had to happen, the execution of season two has left “Kathony” shippers wildly divided over the results.
I won’t spoil the plot too greatly, but if you’re longing to know what works and doesn’t work about season two, then gather your petticoats and polish your Hessians, because Bridgerton season two has more twists than Beau Brummell’s cravat.
The biggest change to the second Bridgerton novel is, of course, the introduction of multiple characters of color. This includes swapping Kate’s origin story. Where before she was your standard white girl from the shire, now, along with her half- sister Edwina (Charithra Chandran) and her stepmother Mary (Shelley Conn), she hails from India. Bridgerton’s raceblind-ish casting approach continues to draw criticism for lacking depth and historical accuracy, just as it did during season one, and Kate’s Indian culture barely intrudes upon the story except to provide fodder for her status as an Unconventional Heroine™. (She rides horses and hunts, because something something India.)
When Kate arrives in London in pursuit of an eligible suitor for her sister, she doesn’t have to wait long: Anthony, a capital “R” Rake who takes his duties as the eldest Bridgerton extremely seriously, has arbitrarily decided now is the time for him to marry. He sets his sights on Edwina because she’s won the queen’s favor. The problem: he’s already met and started to fall for Kate, who in turn overhears him discussing his plans to marry for expedience rather than love and instantly decides she hates him — if hating means flirt-fighting and eye-fucking at every opportunity.
Unlike season one, however, which had plenty of onscreen steam, season two spends most of its time restraining its lovers from doing more than hungrily touching in private. The show, for all its sexual unrestraint in season one, buttons itself up tightly for the second round; it even comes perilously close to suggesting that sex before marriage is a death sentence. It might sound like it’s a general descriptor, because of all its puritan handwringing, to call this season of Bridgerton Austenian, but in fact, it’s rather specific. The show, after a point, borrows many of its romantic beats directly from Austen cinematic adaptations — everything from Darcy’s infamous wet shirt moment to the other Darcy’s infamous hand-flex to headstrong, impetuous maidens muddying their petticoats or venturing out in the rain and meeting with dire misfortune.
Spread out over eight Netflix episodes, all this Austen riffing becomes a tell for the flagging creativity of the Bridgerton writers’ room. These are incredibly well-worn Regency tropes, and there’s room for so much more imaginative uses of this time period and these juicy characters — one might just steal plot ideas directly from Georgette Heyer, for example.
You’ll notice I’m not suggesting the writers simply faithfully adapt Quinn’s book. That’s because The Viscount Who Loves Me contains a wrinkle that romance readers easily accept but which would absolutely baffle Netflix viewers: Its main plot is essentially the same as that of the first book. If you’ll recall, the first season sees Anthony catching his sister Daphne and her dishy duke Simon alone in a compromising position, after which the two wed. Although they’re in love, Simon’s wish to never father children creates a huge conflict for them following their wedding, which the series spends the second half of season one trying to unravel.
In The Viscount Who Loves Me, the exact same thing happens to Anthony and Kate: Before Anthony’s attempt to woo a disinterested Edwina is far underway, he and Kate get caught in a rather extraordinary compromising position involving a bee sting. (It’s actually super angsty, albeit ridiculous.) They immediately get engaged and marry, then spend the rest of the book ironing out their deeper conflicts, misunderstandings, and insecurity.
While romance readers are used to seeing this “caught in a compromising position” trope happen over and over again in novels — it even repeats as a tossed-off side plot in season two — it’s easy to see Netflix viewers questioning a season two that does exactly the same thing as season one, just with different characters. So it makes complete sense that after the pivotal “bee sting” scene, Bridgerton departs from the book in a major way: Anthony proceeds with his courtship and eventual engagement to Edwina, all the while trying to resist his attraction to Kate. The stakes for Edwina to pull off a great marriage are much higher in this adaptation, so there’s theoretically more pressure on Kate to resist her own attraction to Anthony. It should all make for a delightful confection of sexual tension.
But after this plot divergence, Bridgerton’s second season suffers from a weird dual problem of compression and emptiness. Around the main plotline, the season works in plenty of plot points taken from later Bridgerton novels. It’s a clear attempt to consolidate the series’ eight novels into a much more condensed timeline. That approach seems preferable, given that the Bridgertons are always more entertaining as a unit than broken up into individuals.
Still, this compression means more distractions from the main plot. It means that Kate and Anthony should sizzle that much more whenever they’re onscreen together. But they… don’t. Despite Simone Ashley and Jonathan Bailey’s best efforts (and they’re both fantastic!), their moments of intimacy feel obligatory rather than impulsive, as if the writers tossed in physical touches whenever they got bored of trying to develop their relationship. The irresistible chemistry Kate and Anthony are meant to possess just isn’t quite there.
The considerable age difference between Edwina and Anthony — he’s about 13 or 14 years older — never causes explicit concern, but it looms uncomfortably over the show’s back half, as Edwina gradually starts to care for Anthony, remaining ignorant of her sister’s feelings right up until everything implodes. Meanwhile, everyone in their lives urges Kate and Anthony to just act on their feelings and get married, already, and this “follow your heart!” monologue passes from character to character until it becomes monotonous. Despite upping the stakes on Edwina’s marriage, giving the Sharmas a more interesting cross-cultural background, and giving Kate an intriguing conflict over her dual role as surrogate parental figure and stepdaughter — the Kate/Anthony/Edwina storyline ultimately feels more like filler than the side storylines it’s competing with. The season’s production was also halted twice due to Covid; still, the delays fail to fully explain why, at just eight episodes, this season feels unnecessarily long.
Thankfully, there are plenty of other compelling reasons to keep watching — chief among them being the evolving storyline involving Eloise Bridgerton (Claudia Jessie), her search for the mysterious scandal sheet writer Lady Whistledown, and her best friend Penelope “‘Pen’ is for ‘pen name’” Featherington (Nicola Coughlan). Eloise and Pen, one fed up with society, the other longing to truly participate in it, deliver the show’s most intriguing conflict — and the most subtextually suggestive. Although all of the Bridgerton books feature heterosexual romances, including ones for Eloise, Pen, and the artistic Bridgerton brother, Benedict, these characters’ arcs in particular lend themselves to queer readings. Of course, the plot steering these characters toward heterosexual romances doesn’t preclude readings of them as bisexual or pansexual; but the text seems to actively resist such interpretations, nor has it really earned any of them, at least not yet.
Then again, that makes me excited for the show’s third season, and the potential further development of Eloise’s many awakenings, Pen’s growing self-confidence, and Benedict’s fledgling creative life. Around and in between the lackluster main romances, Bridgerton teems with liveliness, and fun, and a broader story about family, friendships, and self-discovery. That’s the Bridgerton that really came to life in season two, and ultimately that’s the version of Bridgerton that most viewers will enjoy. It may not be the version book fans were hoping for — but it’s the one that strikes closest to the show’s heart, and the one that keeps Bridgerton feeling fresh.
And if it can just learn to treat its romances with as much care and fondness as its friendships, who knows? Bridgerton might yet crystallize into a diamond of the first water.
There are no quick fixes on inflation.
Inflation: Why? That’s the question many consumers have been finding themselves asking lately. Followed by inflation: Fix?
We’re in quite a conundrum when it comes to rising prices. Inflation is at a 40-year high in the United States and accelerating around the globe. The situation may very well get worse before it gets better, as Russia’s war on Ukraine stands to exacerbate price pressures, as does a new round of lockdowns in China due to Covid-19.
Among economists and experts, there’s no strict consensus about what exactly is to blame. There are certain factors widely agreed upon that we’ve been hearing about for months: supply chain woes, rising oil prices, shifting consumer demands. These concerns have hardly subsided. But there are other arenas where there’s more disagreement, such as the role government stimulus has played in increasing prices, and the possibility that corporate greed is an important factor.
There’s also no clear agreement on what the solution is. The Federal Reserve is starting to make moves to try to tamp down inflation, but it’s going to take time for that to have an impact. It’s still uncertain how aggressive the Fed will be or what risks those fixes could pose for the broader economy. The White House is trying to combat price increases, but there’s not really a ton it can do.
“They’re actually doing the right thing, they just don’t have many tools,” said Jason Furman, a Harvard economist and former adviser to President Barack Obama. He said one thing they can do and are doing is to be “realistic in leveling with people” that of course they don’t like inflation, and this isn’t a problem that will solve itself overnight.
While a lot is unknown, one thing seems pretty clear to most: Much of this is the result of factors that have been brewing for quite some time; some back to the start of the pandemic, many even longer. As for when it will be over, we’re likely to be in this situation for a while.
“A lot of people early on in the pandemic were saying it’s just the pandemic, it’s temporary, it’s going to go away on its own,” said Lauren Melodia, deputy director of macroeconomic analysis at the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank. “At this point, we’ve seen it show up in other things, like housing, where it can’t just be the pandemic.”
Whichever economist or expert or policymaker you ask to explain the current inflation story to you is going to tell you something slightly different. I asked a bunch of economists over the past couple of weeks what was causing inflation and how to fix it. Most kind of laughed for a second before launching into their cases, acknowledging the full answer is, to a certain extent, ¯_(ツ)_/¯.
So let’s start with the things most experts generally agree on. For starters, the past couple of years in the economy have been … weird, due in large part to the pandemic. On the supply end, a bunch of industries saw slowdowns and shutdowns when Covid-19 hit, which made it hard to produce and maintain business as usual. The supply chain is global, as are commodities, so even if things were a-okay in the US (which they are not), what happens everywhere else makes a difference.
At the same time, what consumers want has shifted, moving spending from services (remember when restaurants and hair salons weren’t an option?) to spending on goods instead, which haven’t been so readily available (remember the huge runs on lumber and dumbbells?).
“There are shortages of physical goods people want,” said Damon Silvers, director of policy and special counsel for the AFL-CIO. On top of shortages of the goods themselves, it’s also proven tricky to move said goods around. Ports have been clogged; trucks are expensive and in short supply. “After decades of underinvestment in infrastructure, our system for moving goods to market turned out to be very vulnerable,” Silvers said.
Skanda Amarnath, executive director of the advocacy group Employ America, explained that the pandemic exposed a lot of underinvestment that’s been happening in the country for a long time. It turns out if companies and government don’t invest in infrastructure to make business run smoothly but instead constantly try to cut costs and corners at every turn, that matters. “It all stems back, to me, that a lot of underinvestment has been exposed at a time when the economy is recovering,” he said.
That recovery part is important. As much as many people say that they feel bad about the economy right now, the economy is actually pretty decent. Unemployment is relatively low, many people still have quite a bit of money to spend, and the recovery, in a lot of ways, looks pretty solid. But again, therein lies part of the problem: People have money to spend, but not so many places to spend it. “There are multiple things that are happening all at once right now. The pandemic is still going on, we still have supply chain bottlenecks around the globe, parts of the economy are getting up to speed,” Amarnath said.
Climbing oil prices, which translate to climbing gas prices, are also contributing to inflation. Even before the pandemic, energy and gas prices were on the rise, but now, the situation with Russia stands to make things worse. Russia doesn’t have all the world’s oil, but it has enough of it to make a difference, in the US somewhat and more so in Europe. Moreover, Russia’s war on Ukraine and the resulting sanctions are pushing up prices elsewhere on commodities, such as wheat.
“We already had pretty quickly increasing energy prices and commodity prices which now have, of course, exploded, so you get another round of intense cost pressures that affect a wide range of industries,” said Isabella Weber, an economist at UMass Amherst.
Covid-19 is also a continuing factor in inflation, which some people tend to forget. Even if you are living your life mask-free, it doesn’t mean other people are, not only in the US but, probably more importantly, abroad. China is very strict on Covid-19, and China is a very important part of the global supply chain. Covid is on the rise again there, so it’s going to screw up supply chains and, in turn, contribute to inflation. “I’m rather worried,” Weber said of the entire situation.
I would like to be able to tell you a coherent story about inflation where everyone absolutely agrees with all certainty what is going on. But I cannot. So instead, I’m going to pop through some theories that some economists say are contributing and others say are not.
Some experts argue that what’s fostering inflation is that the government put too much money into circulation. Basically, the argument goes, the federal government did three giant stimulus packages pumping trillions of dollars into the economy, and that’s driven prices up. A lot of these people point to the $1,400 stimulus checks that went out in early 2021.
Furman, the Harvard economist, thinks the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan signed into law in early 2021 helped create some of the inflation we’re seeing now. “I think by the time we did the American Rescue Plan, the economy was healing rapidly, households had more money in their bank accounts than they’d ever had before, and jobs were being added rapidly. I just think there was no need for anything on that scale,” he said.
Not everybody, or even a ton of people, agrees with this view, but it’s a view out there. Amarnath said he thinks it would “be wrong to dismiss all sources of demand-side support.” But it’s not the basket he’s placing all his eggs in. “It doesn’t seem obvious that all the people who received the stimmy checks spent the stimmy checks on things that proved to be inflationary.”
It does feel a little iffy to say that giving less-well-off people benefits that included a little over $1,000 tanked the economy, given all the support the government gives to corporations and rich people all the time.
Many progressive economists and politicians are beginning to argue that it’s corporate consolidation that’s making inflation worse. They say that companies have a ton of power (they do) and can set prices at whatever they like because there’s not a lot of competition (there often isn’t). They then say that companies are boosting inflation higher by using the problem as an excuse to increase prices so they can make more profits. Matt Stoller, director of research at anti- monopoly think tank the American Economic Liberties Project, argued in December that the pandemic rise in corporate profits accounts for nearly two-thirds of US inflation increases.
“At the end of the day, yeah, corporations do have the power to change prices,” Melodia said.
The point of companies is to make money, so of course that’s what they’re doing right now, even with inflation. “Saying it’s corporate greed implies that we are surprised corporations are greedy, but that’s like complaining that tigers are hungry. The question is what to do about it in terms of antitrust and tax policy,” Silvers said.
At the same time, is consolidation the main thing behind inflation? There’s reportedly some disagreement even within the White House about whether this is a useful argument. Many of the people placing blame on corporate profiteering acknowledge it’s just a part of what’s going on, not the whole story. Some economists dismiss it altogether.
The whole debate is like this: Some economists say rising wages are contributing to inflation, and others present evidence it’s absolutely not the case. Expectations play a role here — when everybody thinks inflation is happening, then businesses start charging more and workers start charging more money to compensate, which makes the whole thing worse.
“Once you have inflation, there’s some self-perpetuation of it,” Furman said. “There’s some passthrough of wages to prices, and some passthrough of prices to wages. Inflation expectations matter.”
There are no easy answers as to how to address rising inflation or quick fixes that will make this entire episode come to an end.
On a domestic level, the Fed, headed by Jay Powell, has started to raise interest rates. That should do something. The idea is that when the Fed raises rates it makes it more expensive to borrow money, which means less spending and less demand. But there’s concern that doing so could push the US economy toward a recession, like what happened after inflation in the 1970s, or that at the very least that it will cost some workers some jobs. Powell has indicated he’s willing to be aggressive about interest rate hikes to combat inflation if need be.
“I think that raising rates, at this point, is more about trying to get lucky,” Furman said. “Maybe it resets inflation expectations and so the self-fulfilling wage-price passthrough goes away. That’s the cheapest and easiest way to bring down inflation, to bring expectations down.”
Brad DeLong, an economist at UC Berkeley, has a modestly more relaxed view on inflation. “My answer is calm down, it’s by and large a desirable part of adjustments. We look out at what people are expecting in the future, and in five to 10 years from now, people are expecting inflation to quiet down. The Fed will do its job,” he said.
Some inflation problems might be out of the Fed’s reach, even domestically. Rent prices, which go into the services bucket, are about to cause more inflation going forward. If you think that part of the problem in that arena is that there’s too little housing, and rising interest rates could make building housing more expensive (because it will be more expensive to borrow), that doesn’t solve the problem. Which is what makes this whole thing complicated.
The White House and President Joe Biden have also taken some measures to try to address inflation, but what they can do is pretty limited (despite some Republicans trying to insist that this is largely Biden’s fault). They’ve rolled out a supply chain task force and made efforts to address issues such as bottlenecks at ports and semiconductor shortages. But it’s not like President Biden has a “stop inflation” button on his desk — which, if he did have one, he would definitely use.
“The White House has been very engaged with the problem of bottlenecks using the ordinary powers of government, but it takes time,” Silvers said. “The administration is addressing longstanding problems in our infrastructure and our manufacturing base that were allowed by prior administrations to go on for years and, in some cases, decades.”
“The advantage of the pandemic is it has thrown our economy into disarray to the extent that people are asking big questions about how do we come up with long-term solutions. The downside is that there’s no quick fix,” Melodia said.
If inflation really persists, the federal government could look into raising taxes or cutting spending, but some of that wouldn’t just entail the White House; you’d also need Congress.
Much of what’s causing inflation is also beyond the United States’s borders. Oil is a global commodity, and Russia’s war on Ukraine has pushed oil prices up even more than they were before. There’s very little the US can do about China’s zero-Covid policy, and even if China tweaks it, the virus there and elsewhere will create supply chain disruptions again.
We’d already seen the effect of supply chain issues and the pressure of commodity and energy prices prior to the war, Weber explained, but it has become worse in recent weeks. She noted that international cooperation would likely be needed to try to stabilize some commodity markets.
“It seemed like an expectable type of outcome from the war and the sanctions that you would get very major turmoil in the commodity markets,” Weber said. “Given how sectoral this inflation is, I think we need more policy action that is targeted to specific sectors.”
Again, different ideas for fixing inflation depend on what you think is causing it. For those in the camp that government stimulus and an overly accommodative Fed are part of the problem, that means that in the future, they’ll push for less stimulus and a less lenient Fed. For those in the corporate power camp, solutions look like better antitrust enforcement, taxes on corporate profits, or maybe even price controls. There are plenty of ideas out there about strategies to address issues in oil supply and to combat some inflationary pressures through health care policies, among others.
More broadly, some of the fixes for inflation are just going to take some time. Production capacity will get moving again, demand will cool off, maybe some necessary investments will be made.
It would be nice if there were one neat trick to solve inflation. There is not. The good news is, things will probably get better eventually. They just might get worse — and in turn cause a lot of pain — first.
Why Ukraine staying out of NATO is emerging as a possible settlement to end the war.
Even as the war in Ukraine rages, officials from Ukraine and Russia are in negotiations to find a way to end the conflict. And neutrality is one of the key principles Kyiv and Moscow are reportedly negotiating right now.
The idea of Ukraine serving as a neutral bridge between Russia and the West is not new. But one month into a war in which Ukrainian resistance has scuttled Russia’s larger war aims, the idea has regained cache as a solution to help stop the devastation in Ukraine — and to guard against future conflict.
In broad terms, Ukrainian neutrality would likely force it to abandon its ambitions of ever joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and forgo hosting any NATO installations on its territory, likely in exchange for some sort of security guarantees, to prevent Russia from launching another invasion.
Both Ukraine and Russia may find something palatable in it. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has acknowledged that Ukraine will not actually join NATO, and Ukrainian officials have indicated they’re open to discussing Ukraine’s status. It may also be something Russia could accept, if keeping NATO out of Ukraine, and away from Russia’s borders, is an outcome Russian President Vladimir Putin could spin at home. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has said that a deal for a neutral Ukraine could be a “kind of compromise.”
Ukrainian neutrality, said Pascal Lottaz, assistant professor for neutrality studies at the Waseda Institute for Advanced Study, may be the only option “where all the parties — the Russians, the Ukrainians, and the US and NATO — would basically sit down and say, ‘Fine, we can accept that; fine, we can live with that.’”
But it will depend on the details. Ukraine formally abandoned its neutral status in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and invaded Eastern Ukraine. Putin’s grievances ahead of the war went far beyond Ukraine’s possible — but also extremely unlikely — NATO membership, and so Russia may have a different version of neutrality in mind. Indeed, Putin’s other stated goal of “demilitarization” of Ukraine hints at that.
“Neutrality — that term is used here, but it’s not really what any of this is about,” said Mark Kramer, director of the Cold War Studies Project at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University. “It’s about complete subservience, and I think that’s what Ukrainians have thoroughly rejected.”
Russia, in attacking Ukraine, trampled over its own international agreements and obligations, which is going to make neutrality — or potentially any brokered deal — require more than Putin’s signature. Some combination of the world’s powerful countries is likely going to have to get involved, including possibly the United States, Europe, NATO, even China. These countries may have to decide how far they are willing to go to assure Ukraine’s neutrality, if it comes to that. And if NATO, say, becomes a guarantor of Ukraine’s neutral status, suddenly Ukraine doesn’t seem so neutral after all.
A neutral Ukraine, then, might sound fine to everyone. But neutrality only works because countries see it in their political and security interests to respect that status — and, as bombs continue to fall, it is not yet clear Russia sees it that way, too.
Europe is no stranger to neutral states, whether in 19th century Europe or during the Cold War. As Ulrika Möller, associate professor in political science at the University of Gothenburg said, neutrality is an instrument for smaller states to protect their own political integrity against a major neighbor or regional power. As she put it: “We want to stay alive, so what do we have to do to stay alive?”
Maartje Abbenhuis, a war historian at the University of Auckland, said that often the thing we call neutrality is actually “neutralization,” where “the world agrees to remove something out of the foreign policy, so everybody agrees not to attack it.”
A version of “neutralization” is likely in store for Ukraine. Although Kyiv may agree to adopt a policy of neutrality, if it sticks, it will be because Ukraine, Russia, and the West see it in their interest to preserve that status. Russia would agree to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but that also likely means NATO’s open door to Ukrainian membership would close.
Ukraine would have some company in Europe among neutral, or non-aligned states. Austria, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, and Malta are all neutral or nonaligned countries within the European Union. Switzerland, famously, is neutral, though not in the EU.
All those countries have militaries since they still have the right to defend themselves if someone violates that neutrality. Some, like Switzerland and Sweden, have embraced a version of neutrality for centuries. Others adopted it out of both outside pressure and necessity, like Finland, which shares an 800-mile border with Russia. Russia invaded Finland in 1939, and though the Finns fended off a Russian takeover, in the interest of not having that happen again, it signed a friendship treaty with Russia in 1948, and stayed non-aligned during the Cold War, though it put up with a lot of Soviet meddling and influence through that period.
Peskov, the Kremlin spokesperson, reportedly suggested that both sides were talking about the possibility of an Austrian or Swedish-like neutrality for Ukraine. And experts said Austria may be the best analogue for a future neutral Ukraine.
After World War II, the Allied powers (France, Britain, the US, and the Soviet Union) occupied Austria, much like Germany. In exchange for ending the occupation, Austria agreed to declare neutrality. On October 26, 1955 — the day after the deadline for the last foreign troops to leave Austria — Austria adopted permanent neutrality into its constitution. Austria wouldn’t join military alliances, wouldn’t take sides in future wars, and wouldn’t allow foreign bases on their territory.
Over time, neutrality becomes intertwined with a country’s political identity, regardless of whether it was imposed or a choice. Austria’s neutrality was the bargain to end occupation. Peter Ruggenthaler, deputy director of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Research on the Consequences of War, noted that Austrian political parties have generally been wary of supporting NATO membership, and most Austrians oppose it, too. “It is less for the population a question of security — it is mostly a question of identity,” he said.
That doesn’t mean external factors can’t shift a country’s nonaligned position — or that neutrality itself can’t be a bit flexible. Public support for joining NATO has crept up in Sweden and Finland in the wake of Russia’s invasion, though not by overwhelming margins. And though both remain formally nonaligned, both cooperate quite closely with NATO already.
Still, neutrality is a valuable geopolitical instrument that a non-aligned state can wield to advance its own interests. It’s also the reason why European security questions were hashed out in Helsinki during the Cold War, and why Vienna is host to the Iran deal negotiations today.
Neutrality for Ukraine would also seem to be the ideal political instrument: a former Soviet Republic that could become a buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe, managing ties with both. That’s why the idea of neutral Ukraine wasn’t born out of this war. But agreeing to that status now, amid one, is even more complicated.
Russia continues to bombard cities and destroy civilian infrastructure like hospitals and a theater. More than 1,000 Ukrainian civilians have been confirmed killed as of March 25 (a number likely much higher that will continue to rise) and more than 10 million people have been displaced, with more than 3.7 million of them fleeing to other countries. The Russian army has seen astounding casualties, too, with NATO saying possibly as many as 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed so far. Meanwhile, Western sanctions are strangling Russia’s economy, leaving ordinary Russians to suffer.
The costs multiply each day the war goes on. The best hope for a ceasefire, and a longer-term truce, may be an agreement on Ukraine’s neutral status.
Ukraine committed to neutrality in the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union; each of its swings away from neutrality was usually in response to Russian threats or aggression. Russia does have valid security concerns about NATO being on its borders. But Putin’s rhetoric has denied Ukrainian statehood and demanded the “demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine,” a false attack that is largely code for regime change.
Putin’s maximalist position doesn’t really square with just accepting neutrality — although battlefield losses and Ukraine’s resistance may have changed Moscow’s calculus. But even so, that leads to another problem: Who trusts Putin now?
“There were probably at least a dozen international agreements that Russia signed with Ukraine that did commit Russia to respecting Ukraine’s December 1991 borders, yet, the Russian government has shown no importance to adhering to those obligations,” said Kramer, of Harvard’s Davis Center.
An agreement between Ukraine and Russia on neutrality won’t be sufficient. Vlad Mykhnenko, an economic geographer at the University of Oxford who has written about the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, said even if there is a treaty, little is stopping Russia from breaking it. “What happens then, if [Putin] says: ‘Oh, actually, we don’t like it. I’m going in, there is something we don’t like in Ukraine, and we have to clear it out.’”
That may be the biggest question about Ukraine’s neutral status: Who is going to guarantee it stays that way?
That is where the rest of the world comes in, likely the US and its allies. And a lot depends on what risks they are willing to tolerate — and whether that would be acceptable to Ukraine or Russia.
Mykhnenko said that if a neutral Ukraine was again attacked, there should be a “guarantee to provide military help, and boots on the ground.”
The obvious candidates to back Ukraine are those that have the most at stake: Europe, the US, and NATO. But some suggested it might take more than that, and countries like China might need to get involved to help enforce and sweeten the deal for Russia.
How strong these guarantees are matters. If they involve NATO allies committing to backing Ukraine up in case Russia goes full-scale invasion again, that would be a lot like NATO membership in all but name. “Would the United States or other NATO countries be allowed to use military force if an agreement in the family is violated? That, I think, may be a bridge too far for the Russians at this point,” said P. Terrence Hopmann, a professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University.
But, Hopmann added, given the bad faith Putin has shown in negotiations, it will be difficult for Ukraine to accept neutrality without some serious security guarantees. Other experts said non-military mechanisms, like automatic sanctions or other penalties, are an option. But it seems unlikely those would be sufficient for a country that is pleading with the West for a no-fly zone.
“That’s the circle that’s hard to square in this case,” Hopmann said. “That’s where we’re stuck right now, in many ways.”
If Russia does accept Ukrainian neutrality, it will likely be because Putin’s quick victory plan has floundered. But in Ukraine, where the vast majority of the public wants to fight, and believes they will win, neutral status feels much more loaded than it might have a month ago.
“It’s much harder now for Ukrainians to accept this under the pressure of the Russian military threat and a war going on in [their] country,” Hopmann said. “It looks like now they’re doing it under the barrel of a gun, rather than as the voluntary wishes of the Ukrainian population.”
Ukrainians under siege are also deeply skeptical that neutrality is what Russia wants. “Russia will not honor any security guarantees because Russia will accept nothing less than Ukraine’s destruction,” said Mychailo Wynnyckyj, a sociologist from the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. “It’s not about status, it’s about existence.”
Those who see a neutral Ukraine as the only solution to end the war are seeing this more multipolar world through a realist lens. There are big powers in competition, and there are weaker powers who get caught in the middle, and they are likely to be forced into choices for their survival, whether or not they fit with ideas of democracy and freedom and self- determination.
Neutrality may solve one dilemma, but any negotiated deal between Russia and Ukraine will almost certainly address issues beyond neutrality. Some of the demands Russia has reportedly put forward include the so- called “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine. Denazification is fake, and likely an effort at regime change — something that Ukrainians, who have rallied around Zelenskyy’s leadership, will not agree to right now.
Exactly what demilitarization means is also unclear, but experts said it could mean limits on Ukraine’s offensive weapons or troop numbers. But the idea that Ukraine would give up its military after just being invaded seems unfathomable, and, again, most neutral countries maintain armies.
And of course there are the questions of Ukraine’s territory, and whether Moscow will demand the recognition of Russian control of Crimea and/or try to carve out the Donbas, where Russia has declared two regions independent, and where it appears to be escalating its offensive.
But these discussions are happening amid a war that is making it hard for either side to engage in diplomacy, as they’re still trying to win concessions by other means. Turkey’s foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, who is helping to broker the talks, said recently that while there is momentum, “it’s not that easy to negotiate while the war is ongoing or to agree when civilians are dying.”
“The outcome of the war will be decided on the battlefield,” Mykhnenko said. “I’m afraid that’s a basic truth. Whatever discussion, decisions, debates, negotiations are taking place in Belarus or Istanbul — all of that is just a sideshow.”
But all wars, whether fought to a draw or with a clear victor, end in agreements. The only difference is how much suffering and destruction happens in the process of getting there. Advocates for Ukrainian neutrality believe the sooner that happens, the sooner it will spare Ukraine, and the rest of Europe, from more tragedy.
“In the end,” said Lottaz, the professor for neutrality studies, “it will be a Ukrainian model, it will be unique — if it becomes something. But again, it’s either neutrality or Afghanistan. At least I don’t see another way out.”
Rudrakshi wins girls u-15 title -
Canada beat Jamaica to end 36-year FIFA World Cup finals drought - Canada will play at the World Cup for the first time since 1986 in Mexico, where they lost all three games and failed to score a goal
Indian Premier League 2022: RCB vs PBKS | Punjab Kings ambush Royal Challengers Bangalore - Chasing a target of 206, Smith and Shahrukh take team home
Presidential and Candescent Star show out -
Kannur Kayakathon on April 24 - DTPC readies 11-km route for competition
Strike hits life in Kannur, Kasaragod - Vehicles off the road; offices, eateries closed
Bus services hit in Villupuram, Cuddalore due to nationwide strike - Trade unions had called for a two-day strike to protest against the Centre’s policies affecting farmers, workers and the people
An elected, not selected, CM, says Pramod Sawant as he takes oath - Only BJP MLAs inducted in first round of Cabinet formation. Three berths to be filled later
Coastal police to prevent illegal cruise on fishing boats - Velliyamkallu islet to be monitored to prevent unauthorised entry
Russia transfers thousands of Mariupol civilians to its territory - Ukraine condemns Russia’s alleged “deportation” of many civilians from devastated Mariupol.
In Chernihiv, civilians are trapped as hospitals and schools attacked - Residents and officials in Chernihiv say Russian forces are deliberately targeting civilian sites.
Boris Nemtsov: Murdered Putin rival ‘tailed’ by agent linked to FSB hit squad - An investigation finds evidence Boris Nemtsov was shadowed by an agent linked to an assassination team.
Ukraine war: Russian officials seize Swiss watches apparently worth millions - Agents raided a Moscow premises of luxury brand Audemars Piguet, according to a report in Swiss media.
Ukraine: No Russia regime change plans, says Blinken - The US secretary of state spoke after President Biden said Vladimir Putin should not remain in power.
Leica’s new camera puts skill back into focus - Technology has all but removed human ability from the process of taking a picture. - link
Feds allege destructive Russian hackers targeted US oil refineries - Unsealed indictments: Hackers targeted US energy infrastructure for nearly a decade. - link
The weekend’s best deals: New Apple iPad Air, tons of PC games, and more - Dealmaster also includes AirPods, LG OLED TVs, and the latest Kirby game. - link
Secret to keeping ice cream creamy (not crunchy) might be plant-based nanocrystals - New research could also help preserve other frozen foods, donated organs, and tissues. - link
FCC puts Kaspersky on security threat list, says it poses “unacceptable risk“ - Moscow-based firm joins Huawei and ZTE on the same US security threat list. - link
Fresh prints!
submitted by /u/bennetthaselton
[link] [comments]
The best specialists were quietly called in from around the world for consultation. After much debate and research, they determined that the only hope to save the Pope’s life was for him to have sexual relations with a woman. His advisors were notified and they in turn spoke in confidence with the pope. The Pope informs them that he needs a day to pray about it.
The next day the Pope summons his advisors and has the room sealed.
“My sons, after much prayerful consideration I have an answer. I have decided that you shall arrange for this most unusual treatment to preserve my life, for the good of the church, but on three conditions”. “What are the conditions, Your Holiness?”
“First, the woman that you choose must be blind. For if she sees that she is with the pope, she may either get sense of self-importance as the only woman to ever bed a pope, or she may lose her faith in the sanctity of my station. She must be blind”.
“It will be so, what about the next condition?”
“For the same reason, she must also be deaf. While I try to be a righteous man, I am a man and as such I may cry out in pleasure during the act. She must not know that she is with the pope, so she must be deaf”.
“Very wise, it will be done. What is the third condition?”
“Big tits”.
submitted by /u/Rey_De_Los_Completos
[link] [comments]
Because he’s always improving their punchlines.
submitted by /u/sirsquid
[link] [comments]
She said, we were just talking about having a foursome if you’re up for it… She smiled and winked. 2 minutes later I appeared naked with my dick in my hand..
They all had golf clubs in theirs.
submitted by /u/Buddy2269
[link] [comments]
A small boy asks his Dad: “Daddy, what is politics?”
Dad says: “Well son, let me try to explain it this way: I’m the breadwinner of the family, so let’s call me Capitalism. Your mom, she’s the administrator of the money, so we’ll call her the Government. We’re here to take care of your needs, so we’ll call you the People. The nanny, we’ll consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we’ll call him the Future. Now, think about that and see if that makes sense.”
So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said. Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. The little boy goes to his parent’s room and finds his mother sound asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny’s room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father having sex with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.
The next morning, the little boy says to his father: “Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now.” The father says: “Very Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about.”
The little boy replies: “Well, while Capitalism is screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored, and The Future is in Deep Shit.”
submitted by /u/CyberSecPwner
[link] [comments]